Gustave de Molinari

What is divine right? It is the right that certain families possess to govern the people. Who gives them this right? God himself. Just read the Considérations sur la France, and the pamphlet on the Principe générateur des Constitutions politiques of Joseph de Maistre [3] :

"Man cannot make himself sovereign," says M. de Maistre. "At most he can serve as an instrument to dispossess a sovereign and to hand over his dominions to another sovereign who is already a prince. However, there has never existed a sovereign family to which one can assign a plebeian origin. If this phenomenon occurred, it would herald a new era.

" . . . It is said that: It is I who make sovereigns. This is not a saying of the Church, a metaphor of the preacher; it is the literal truth, pure and simple. It is a law of the political world. God makes kings, literally. He prepared the royal lines, he fosters them behind a cloud which obscures their origin. They then appear crowned with glory and honour, they then take their seats." [Joseph de Maistre, Du principe générateur des constitutions politiques, Preface].

This means that God has invested certain families with the right to govern men, and that no one can deprive them of the exercise of this right.

Now, if you recognize certain families as having the exclusive right to exercise this particular kind of industry called government, and if, moreover, you believe, along with the majority of divine right theorists, that the people have to give themselves up, as they have for centuries, either as subjects or as a source of income, like unemployment benefits paid to the members of these families, have you good grounds for rejecting the right to work? Between the improper claim of compelling society to provide workers with work which suits them or with sufficient compensation, and this other improper claim of compelling society to provide the workers of the royal families either with work appropriate to their power and dignity, namely the work of governing, or with a minimum income, what is the difference?

You say that the recognition of divine right is indispensable for the preservation of society. Then why do the people want to rid themselves of divine right monarchies? Why is it that the old monopoly governments are the ones ruined, the others on the verge of being ruined?

On the other hand, sometimes when the people are revolting against their legitimate sovereigns, as recently happened in Italy and Hungary [4], the Lord’s anointed are forced to make these insubordinate cattle obey them once again. To achieve this end, they form a holy alliance and they inflict great carnage on their revolutionary subjects until they have pacified their rebellion. But if the rebels are in communication with other people, the latter join in the struggle and the conflagration becomes widespread. This is the second cause of war!

I have no need to add that the consumers of security, the object of the war, also pay the expenses.

Such are the advantages of monopoly governments.

If, like a master sovereign, man has the right to dispose of his person and goods, he also naturally has the right to defend them. He possesses the right to free defence.

But can each person exercise this right separately? Can each person be his own gendarme and soldier?

No! No more than the same man can be his own labourer, his own barber, his own tailor, his own grocer, his own doctor, his own priest.

It is an economic law that man cannot profitably engage in several professions at the same time. Also one sees, from the beginning of societies, that all industries become specialized and different members of society turn to occupations suited to their natural aptitudes. They live by exchanging the products of their business for the many objects necessary for the satisfaction of their needs.

Isolated man indisputably enjoys all his sovereignty. Only this sovereign, being forced to engage by himself in all the industries which provide the necessities of his life, finds himself in quite a miserable condition.

When man lives in society, he can preserve his sovereignty or he can lose it.

How can he lose his sovereignty?

He loses it either totally or partially, directly or indirectly, when he ceases to be able to dispose of his person and his goods.

Man remains completely sovereign only under a regime of full liberty. All monopoly, all privilege, is an attack on his sovereignty. [6]

Under the ancien régime, where no one had the right to freely dispose of his person and goods, where no one had the right to freely engage in all industry, sovereignty was narrowly limited.

Under the present regime, the attack on the free activity of individuals by a multitude of monopolies, privileges and restrictions has not ceased. Man has not yet fully recovered his sovereignty.

How can he recover it?

Two schools of thought exist, which give completely opposite solutions to this problem: the liberal school and the communist school.

The liberal school says: Destroy monopolies and privilege, give man back his natural right to freely engage in all industry and he will fully enjoy his sovereignty.

The communist school says, on the contrary: Beware of giving each person the right of freely producing everything. This would be oppression and anarchy! Give the right to the community, to the exclusion of individuals. Everyone shall be united to organize all industry in common. The state shall be the sole producer and the sole distributor of wealth.

What is the basis of this doctrine? It is often said to be slavery, to be the absorption and annulment of the individual will in the general will, to be the destruction of individual sovereignty.

In the first rank of industries organized en commun appear those which have as their object the protection and defence of the property of persons and things from all aggression.

How are the communities which engage in this industry, the nation and the commune, organized?

The majority of nations have been successively put together by alliances of the owners of slaves or serfs and by their conquests. France, for example, is a product of alliances and conquests. By marriages, by force or deceit, the sovereigns of the Île de France successively extended their authority over the different parts of ancient Gaul. A single monopoly government succeeded twenty monopoly governments which occupied the present surface of France. The kings of Provence, the dukes of Aquitaine, Brittany, Burgundy, Lorraine, the counts of Flanders, etc., gave way to the king of France. The king of France was entrusted with looking after the internal and external defence of the State. However, he did not manage defence or internal police alone.

Each Lord of the Manor originally policed his domain; each commune, freed through the use of force or through money payments from the Seigneur’s onerous tutelage, policed its recognized region. Communes and Seigneurs contributed to the common defence to a certain degree. One could say that the King of France had the monopoly of general defence and that the lords of the manors and the bourgeoisie of the communes had that of local defence. In certain communes, the police were under the direction of an administration elected by the city bourgeoisie, in the principal communes in Flanders, for example. Elsewhere, the police were formed into corporations like the bakers, butchers, cobblers, in other words, like all other industries. In England, this latter form of the production of security continued until our time. In the city of London, the police were, until recently, in the hands of a privileged corporation. And strangely, this corporation refused to cooperate with police of other areas, so much so that the City had become a veritable refuge for malefactors. This anomaly disappeared only in the period of Robert Peel's reform (see Léon Faucher, Études sur l'Angleterre). What did the French Revolution do? It divested the king of France of the monopoly of general defence, but it did not destroy this monopoly; it handed it back to the nation, organized hereafter as an immense commune. The small communes, into which the territory of the ancient Kingdom of France was divided, continued to exist. The number even increased considerably. The government of the large commune had the monopoly of general defence, the government of the small communes exercised, under the surveillance of the central power, the monopoly of local defence.

But, it did not stop there. Other industries, notably education, religion, transportation, etc., were also organized by the general commune and by the individual communes, and many taxes were imposed on the citizens in order to cover the costs of those industries organized in common in this way.

Later, the socialists, poor observers if ever they were, did not notice that these industries which were organized by the general commune or by the individual communes, were operated more dearly and not as well as those industries left free. They demanded the organization in common of all branches of production. They wanted the general commune and the individual communes not to restrict themselves to providing police, building schools and roads, paying for religion, opening libraries, subsidizing theatres, undertaking stud breeding, making tobacco, carpets, porcelain, etc., but to set about producing all things.

The good sense of the public revolted against this false utopia, but it did not go any further. It well understood that it would be ruinous to produce every thing in common. It did not understand that it was ruinous to produce certain things in common. So it continued to practice partial communism while spurning the socialists who loudly called for complete communism.

However, the conservatives, supporters of partial communism and adversaries of complete communism, are today divided on an important point. Some wish that partial communism continue to be practiced in the general communes; they defend centralization. The others demand, on the contrary, a larger share of powers for the small communes. They wish that the latter could engage in many industries, found schools, construct roads, build churches, subsidize theatres, etc., without needing the authorization of the central government. They demand decentralization. Experience has shown the vices of centralization. Experience has proven that industries engaged in by the large communes, by the State, supply products which are more expensive and worse than those of free industry.

But is this to say that decentralization is better? Is this to say that it is more useful to emancipate the communes or, which comes to the same thing, to allow them to freely establish schools and welfare institutions, build theatres, subsidize religion, or even to freely engage in other industries?

What do the communes need in order to cover the costs of the services which they undertake? They need capital. Where can they get this capital? From the pockets of individuals, nowhere else. They are compelled, therefore, to levy different taxes on the inhabitants of the commune.

These taxes today generally consist in additional sums added to the taxes paid to the State. However, certain communes have also obtained authorization to establish a small customs duty around their borders, under the name of town dues (octroi). This customs duty, which injures the majority of the remaining free industries, naturally considerably increases the resources of the commune. Also the authorizations to establish a town duty are often asked of the central government. The latter does not agree to them and, in doing that, it acts wisely; in return, it quite often allows the communes to impose extraordinary taxes, in other words, it allows the majority of commune administrators to establish an extraordinary tax that all who are governed are forced to pay.

Let the communes be emancipated, let the majority of inhabitants in each locality have the right to establish as many industries as it wishes and force the minority to contribute to the expenses of these industries which are organized in common, let the majority be authorized to freely establish all kinds of local taxes and you will very quickly see established in France as many different and separate States as there are communes. Successively, you will see spring up innumerable internal customs under the name of town duties (octrois), in order to meet local taxes; you will see, when all is said and done, the reconstruction of the middle ages.

Under this regime, the freedom to work and exchange will be harmed by the monopolies that the communes will confer on certain branches of production, and by the taxes that they will levy on other branches, to support the industries carried on in common. The property of all will be at the mercy of the majorities. In the communes where socialist opinion predominates, I ask you, what will become of property? The majority will not only levy taxes to cover the expenses of the police, public roads, religion, welfare institutions, schools, etc., but it will also levy them to establish common workshops, common shops, common banks, etc. Will the non-socialist minority be forced to pay these local taxes? Under such a regime, what then becomes of the sovereignty of the people? Doesn't it disappear under the tyranny of the greatest number? More directly still than centralization, decentralization leads to complete communism, that is to say, to the complete destruction of sovereignty.

What then is necessary to restore to the individuals this sovereignty that monopoly has stolen from them in the past; and that communism, this extended monopoly, threatens to take away from them in the future?

Quite simply, it is necessary to make free the different industries which have hitherto been monopolized, and are presently exercised in common. It is necessary to leave to the free activity of individuals the industries which are still performed or regulated by the State or by the commune.

When the human being possesses the right to freely apply his talents in all kinds of work, as he did before the establishment of societies, without any fetter or tax, then he will again fully enjoy his sovereignty.

Shouldn't justice be essentially free? Now, wouldn't gratuitous fees lead to organization in common?

“The fees of court seem originally to have been the principal support of the different courts of justice in England. Each court endeavoured to draw to itself as much business as it could, and was, upon that account, willing to take cognizance of many suits which were not originally intended to fall under its jurisdiction. The Court of King's Bench, instituted for the trial of criminal causes only, took cognizance of civil suits; the plaintiff pretending that the defendant, in not doing him justice, had been guilty of some trespass or misdemeanour. The Court of Exchequer, instituted for the levying of the king's revenue, and for enforcing the payment of such debts only as were due to the king, took cognizance of all other contract debts; the plaintiff alleging that he could not pay the king because the defendant would not pay him. In consequence of such fictions it came, in many cases, to depend altogether upon the parties before what court they would choose to have their cause tried; and each court endeavoured, by superior dispatch and impartiality, to draw to itself as many cases as it could. The present admirable constitution of the courts of justice in England was, perhaps, originally in a great measure formed by this emulation which anciently took place between their respective judges; each judge endeavouring to give, in his own court, the speediest and most effectual remedy which the law would admit for every sort of injustice.” (The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter 1)

What about the industry which provides internal and external defence? Do you think that it would be much better than that of justice? Don't our police and especially our army cost us very dearly for the actual service they give us?

Finally, is there any disadvantage to this public defence industry being in the hands of a majority?

Let us examine it.

In a system where the majority establishes the assessment of taxes and directs the use of public funds, mustn't the tax weigh more or less heavily on certain sections of society, according to the predominant influences? Under monarchy, when the majority was purely fictitious, when the upper class assumed the right of governing the country to the exclusion of the rest of the nation, didn't the tax weigh principally on the consumption of the lower classes, on salt, wines, meat, etc.? Without doubt, the bourgeoisie paid its share of taxes, but the sphere of its consumption being infinitely larger than that of the lower class, much less of its revenue was seized. As the lower class becomes aware of this, it will acquire more influence in the State and you will see an opposite tendency produced. You will see progressive taxes, which are today turned against the lower class, turned against the upper class. The latter will without doubt resist this new tendency with all its might; it will cry out against spoliation and theft; but if the communal institution of universal suffrage is maintained, if the vicissitudes of violence do not return, once again, the government of society into the hands of the rich classes to the exclusion of the poor classes, the will of the majority will prevail and progressive taxes will be established. A part of the property of the rich will then be confiscated to lighten the burden of the poor, just as a part of the property of the poor has, for a long time, been confiscated to lighten the burden of the rich.

But there is still worse to come. Not only can the majority of a communal government establish, as it wishes, the assessment of taxes, but it can, in addition, put this tax to whatever use it judges suitable, without taking the will of the minority into account. In certain countries, the government of the majority uses part of public funds to protect property which is essentially illegitimate and immoral. In the United States, for example, the government guarantees Southern planters their property in slaves. However, there are, in the United States, abolitionists who rightly consider slavery as theft. No matter! The communal mechanism forces them to contribute their money to the maintenance of this kind of theft. If one day the slaves attempted to free themselves from this iniquitous yoke, the abolitionists will be forced to go to the defence of the planter's property, arms in hand. This is the law of majorities! Elsewhere, it happens that the majority, driven by political intrigues or by religious fanaticism, declares war on a foreign people. Although the minority is horrified at this war and curses it, it is forced to contribute its own blood and money. Again, this is the law of the majorities! So what happens? The majority and the minority are perpetually at war and that war sometimes descends from the parliamentary arena into the street.

Today, it is the red minority which is rising up in rebellion. If this minority becomes the majority, and if, by using its rights as a majority, it altered the constitution as it saw fit, if it decreed progressive taxes, compulsory loans, and paper money, what assurance do you have that the white minority would not rise up in rebellion tomorrow?

There is no lasting security in this system. And do you know why? Because it threatens property directly; because it puts at the mercy of a majority, blind or enlightened, moral or immoral, the person and goods of everyone. If the communal regime, instead of being adapted to a multitude of aims, as in France, was narrowly restricted as in the United States, the causes for dissent being less numerous, the disadvantages of this system would be less. However, they would not disappear entirely. In certain circumstances, the acknowledged right of the greatest number to tyrannize the will of the smallest number might still generate a civil war.

Now, if there are, on the one hand, men able to provide a need of society, and on the other hand, men prepared to suffer sacrifices in order to satisfy this need, isn't it enough to leave each one of them alone so that the goods demanded, tangible or intangible, are produced and that the need is satisfied? Doesn't this economic phenomenon happen irresistibly, fatally, like the physical phenomenon of the fall of bodies? Am I then not justified in saying that, if a society gives up the provision of public security, then this particular industry would nevertheless be provided? Am I not justified in adding that it would be better under the regime of liberty rather than under the regime of the community?

Thus I can maintain that if the need to be fed is manifest in the heart of society, this need will be satisfied, and that the freer each person is to produce food or buy it from whoever he wishes, the better it will be.

I can maintain further that things would happen in exactly the same way if, instead of food, it was a matter of security. Therefore, I claim that if a community gave notice that after a certain interval, a year for example, it would cease the payment of judges, soldiers and gendarmes, at the end of the year this community would not have fewer courts and governments ready to function. And I add that if, under this new regime, each person retained the right to freely engage in these two industries and to freely buy these services, security would be produced most economically and would be the best possible.

"People, form a Holy Alliance
and help each other."

This time, they would be united, and since they have the means of communication that their ancestors did not have, and since they are a hundred times more numerous than their old rulers, the holy alliance of the aristocracies would soon be destroyed. I swear that no one would be tempted to establish a monopoly any longer.

But just as war is inevitable under a regime of monopoly, peace is inevitable under a regime of free government. Under this regime, governments can win nothing by war; they can, on the contrary, lose everything. What interest would they have in undertaking a war? Would it be to increase the number of their clientele? But since the consumers of security are free to govern themselves as they wish, they would get away from the conquerors. If the latter wanted to impose their rule on them, after having destroyed the existing government, the oppressed would immediately call for the help of all people.... The wars of company against company, moreover, would occur only as long as the shareholders wished to advance the costs. As war is now no longer able to bring anyone an increase in clientele since the consumers would no longer allow themselves to be conquered, the costs of war would obviously no longer be covered. Then who would want to advance them?

I come to the conclusion that war would be materially impossible under this regime, considering that wars cannot be conducted without covering in advance for the costs.

1. That the insurance companies establish certain penalties against offenders of person and property; that those insured agree to submit to these penalties in the event that they themselves commit crimes against person or property.
2. That they impose on those insured certain restrictions with the aim of facilitating the detection of the perpetrators of the crime.
3. That, in order to cover their costs, they regularly charge a certain premium which will vary according to the situation of those insured, their particular occupation, the extent, nature and value of the property to be protected.

If these stipulated conditions were agreeable to the consumers of security, the contract would be concluded; otherwise the consumers would turn to other companies or provide their own security. Follow this hypothesis in all its details and you will be convinced, I think, of the possibility of transforming monopoly or communist governments into free governments.

Until the present time, governments have divided the people in order to more easily keep them obedient; divide in order to rule, this has been the fundamental maxim of their policy in all ages. Men of the same race, to whom the community of language gives an easy means of communication, have energetically reacted against the practice of this maxim; in all ages, they have tried to destroy the artificial barriers which separate them. Finally, when they have succeeded, they have wanted a single government so that they will not be disunited again. But note well that they have never asked this government to separate them from other people .... The instinct of nationalities is thus not selfish, as has so often been claimed; on the contrary, it is essentially sympathetic. If the diversity of governments stops causing the separation, the dismembering of peoples, you will see the same nationality willingly accept several of them. A single government is no more necessary to establish the unity of a people than a single bank, a single educational institution, a single religion, a single grocer's store, etc.